Mr. Slaughter highlighted the significant cuts to legal aid over the past decade, emphasizing that legal aid has been disproportionately affected by budget reductions. He criticized the premise of LASPO for reversing 70 years of practice in legal aid, leading to a reduction in access to justice and equality before the courts. He pointed out that civil legal aid funding has seen a 38% cut from approximately £2.6 billion to £1.7 billion over ten years, affecting sustainability within the field. The number of providers for civil legal aid decreased by half since 2014 while the number of cases declined by more than 80%. He also mentioned the detrimental impact on law centres and other advice agencies due to funding cuts.

He highlighted the cuts to legal aid since 2010, noting a reduction from £2.6 billion to £1.7 billion overall and from £1.4 billion to approximately £897 million for criminal legal aid. Charalambous criticised LASPO's objectives and stated that only one objective was achieved: saving money for the Treasury. He pointed out the increase in litigants in person due to cuts, citing examples of people affected by reduced access to legal aid such as domestic violence victims, undocumented minors facing deportation, and individuals needing help with disability benefits appeals. Charalambous also mentioned a decline in criminal legal aid firms and an existential threat to these services. He called for the fast-tracking of the criminal legal aid review and significant investment in the criminal justice system.

He expressed concern about the significant reduction in legal aid spending since the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. He cited specific cases such as Zane Gbangbola where families were denied legal aid, leading to a disparity in representation. Between 2010 and 2016, net spending on legal aid fell by 38%, from £2.6 billion to £1.6 billion.

He highlighted that victims of crime who are low-income earners often struggle without legal aid representation and stressed the importance of restoring legal aid to pre-2010 levels.

John Howell questioned the effectiveness of legal aid spending cuts since 2010, noting a reduction of about 38% overall and 18% in legal aid. He highlighted the shift towards mediation and arbitration as an alternative to litigation, citing personal experience and his role with the all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution. He asked whether these changes have been factored into budget reductions and what impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on legal services.

Karen Buck highlighted the worsening situation for legal aid since the LASPO Act was introduced. She emphasized the significant increase in cases, especially related to employment and housing issues due to coronavirus. The number of inquiries received by her local Citizens Advice Bureau increased dramatically between April and June 2020, with many involving severe risks such as illegal evictions and exploitation by rogue employers or landlords. Buck also pointed out a substantial decrease in legal aid providers across the country and highlighted the poor remuneration levels for lawyers working on civil cases.

Discussed the need to review legal aid and highlighted issues such as access to justice, quality of support for early resolution, funding for law centres, retention and diversity at the criminal Bar, and remuneration for junior legal aid practitioners.

He emphasised the need for a balance between supporting victims of crime and reducing costs in the criminal justice system, pointing out that legal aid spending accounts for less than 2% of the Ministry of Justice's budget.

He raised concerns about the impact of cuts to legal aid on firms' ability to survive, noting a significant reduction in police station attendances by 41% since the pandemic began.

The Chair pointed out the time constraint, stating that if ten minutes each is given to both Front Benchers, contributions from other members would have to be shortened.